The concept of a "doper" class for various sporting categories is sometimes raised (often while discussing Lance over a few drinks). I wonder if anyone seriously advocates this "formula libre" as it were, for athletes?

Can you imagine a new class of "super-athletes" with no rules - running on nitro methane? The key would be finding that fine line between maximum performance and serious injury or death. A shorter lifespan is probably a given. Interest levels and audiences would skyrocket - and there's the rub. I know I wouldn't want my kids worshipping these "heroes" - and dreaming of emulating them!!

The concept of a "doper" class for various sporting categories is sometimes raised (often while discussing Lance over a few drinks). I wonder if anyone seriously advocates this "formula libre" as it were, for athletes?

Can you imagine a new class of "super-athletes" with no rules - running on nitro methane? The key would be finding that fine line between maximum performance and serious injury or death. A shorter lifespan is probably a given. Interest levels and audiences would skyrocket - and there's the rub. I know I wouldn't want my kids worshipping these "heroes" - and dreaming of emulating them!!

A big NO from me.

Hmm, tricky question. At first blush I would say no due to the health risks but then ostensibly this is a forum about Formula 1 where there is a significant risk of death/injury at every event. Side effects such as the influence it might have on amateur bike racing could also be very unhealthy.

Suppose there was a performance enhancing drug (or procedure) with no long term side effects apart from those directly associated with the extra general wear and tear caused and enabled by the use of that drug/procedure? It's not entirely hypothetical- all that messing about with bags of blood is the one example i can think of, although there may be long term effects from that.

If we're just concerned with the athletes' overall health, a lot of things would easily get banned immediately. Racing, football and hockey for the frequent concussions, boxing and MMA, etc. I don't think that going down that road is reasonable or even viable (new sports would keep popping up to replace old banned ones).

If we're concerned about the influence on other people, well that's basically the only somewhat compelling reason that drugs are still illegal. If we legalize and regulate them, then more people will feel it's okay to use them which will in turn cause a crapload of problems.

So if there's a sporting event where anything goes, perhaps more people will indeed be influenced to use dangerous steroids and the like. At that point, it's like motorcycle helmet laws: do we let people kill themselves when the survivors will have to pay the costs?

If we're just concerned with the athletes' overall health, a lot of things would easily get banned immediately. Racing, football and hockey for the frequent concussions, boxing and MMA, etc. I don't think that going down that road is reasonable or even viable (new sports would keep popping up to replace old banned ones).

Most of the instances you mention are health "risks" associated with various sports. No matter how high the "risk" it is still only a probability, not a guarantee. I contend that unlimited PED use would guarantee a poor health outcome for every participant.

Does have have to be either totally clean or totally unrestricted? Can't you just mandate levels of certain things that drugging is meant to boost? For example, set a limit on the level of red blood cells to avoid heart attacks, and let athletes reach that level however they want. I imagine that checking blood levels or testosterone levels is a lot more foolproof than checking for PEDs.

Does have have to be either totally clean or totally unrestricted? Can't you just mandate levels of certain things that drugging is meant to boost? For example, set a limit on the level of red blood cells to avoid heart attacks, and let athletes reach that level however they want. I imagine that checking blood levels or testosterone levels is a lot more foolproof than checking for PEDs.

Essentially that is what is already done in cycling with Hematocrit levels with 50% being the maximum. Obviously an athletes performance is due to a balance of factors, an athlete with a low natural Hematocrit will usually be compensated with a high value for something else, if they've made it to the elite level. This athlete will be disproportionally advantaged by setting an acceptable limit.

There are also drugs that can be used to lower blood values, but still maintain benefits of using blood doping. Finnish cross-country ski team got done for using one of these in 2001 because they didn't know there was a new test for it.

If it was all allowed and in the open you could take drugs even during the race. Then just before the test take different drugs to get all your values back to spec.

Italian main newspaper “Il Corriere della Sera” has shown in its website American rower Henrik Rummel, bronze medallist in the coxless four, with what looks like a boner while receiving the medal. Pictures: http://www.corriere....73c03cd.shtml#1[/quote